Penn State Sandusky cover-up: AD arrested, Paterno fired, dies; cover-up charged #8

You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.

And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

pinktoes said:

You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.

And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

Click to expand...

Who knows what a grand jury might have turned up in 1998.

Who knows what a handful of state investigators might have turned up then/

Nobody knows because they dropped it, kept it all quite and swept under the rug.

pinktoes said:

You know, the AG now has a fist full of charges, all various sexual assaults to charge Sandusky with. So far as I know, from 1998 thru the day Gricar disappeared, he had ONE incident and several related charges based on it.

Click to expand...

He had two, Victim 6 and B. K. B. K isn't available today.

There's a world of difference between those two legal scenarios. And it makes all the difference.

Click to expand...

Each charge must be proved separately and, as noted, some of them are very weak. I fully expect Sandusky to be found not guilty on a few.

Can you imagine, in 1998, with Sandusky still a coach--or even if PSU booted him by the time it came to trial or pleading down to an ARD--he would be a very recently booted out coach. That, too, would've made it more difficult to do much with him in 1998.

Click to expand...

Remember that charges could still be filed at any point after that; the statute of limitation still hasn't been hit.

And, realistically, look at all the people of influence who would have had a better chance of pulling strings for Sandusky with that one 1998 charge. VS now, when it's very hard to say, well, he made one mistake---blah, blah, blah.

I imagine that JKA, who liked doing child abuse cases, might have wanted charges against JS in 1998. I imagine that Gricar, as the DA, although torn about it (a "close-call"), knew the political and other powerful influences he'd be up against. And decided to try to wait for the equivalent of what's being charged now.

Click to expand...

If you wish to claim, as you do here that RFG's decision was part of the "culture of cover up" at Penn State, feel free. But remember, you are the one claiming it.

And don't tell me Gricar had no reason to believe this wasn't a pattern of behavior on JS' part. It was known. He knew more victims would turn up.

Click to expand...

You can't prosecute on rumors.

And, BTW, I had no theories about what happened to Gricar before I started reading all the old posts--which was after Nov, 2011. So, when I say I sense JJ's dislike for Gricar in old posts, it is NOT because he disagrees with my theory about Gricar. It's just how your old posts came across, JJ. And, further, there's nothing wrong with disliking someone. There are people I dislike and I've never even met them. It happens. It just makes people take note and factor that in as they judge the impartiality of your argument.

Click to expand...

Such as? Here is one you might want to read: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html

RFG's decision in the Sandusky case was a horrifically bad one, but it was also an uncharacteristically bad one.

J. J. in Phila said:

He had two, Victim 6 and B. K. B. K isn't available today.



Each charge must be proved separately and, as noted, some of them are very weak. I fully expect Sandusky to be found not guilty on a few.



Remember that charges could still be filed at any point after that; the statute of limitation still hasn't been hit.



If you wish to claim, as you do here that RFG's decision was part of the "culture of cover up" at Penn State, feel free. But remember, you are the one claiming it.



You can't prosecute on rumors.



Such as? Here is one you might want to read:http://www.centredaily.com/2010/08/27/2397563/the-legacy-of-district-attorney.html

RFG's decision in the Sandusky case was a horrifically bad one, but it was also an uncharacteristically bad one.

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder if there was some outside influence on him in that decision...

JJ: you totally misunderstood me. I think perhaps Gricar was realistically assessing just how far he'd get in a courtroom--and outside of a courtroom--going up against all the power brokers and politicians in that town, from 1998 thru 2005 with that 1998 incident. I think he was hoping to build a stronger case, with more victims. Perhaps 10 was his trigger. IDK

I do know that community has some people much more influential than Gricar, who, collectively, didn't need his help in covering up Sandusky's crimes. I see him on the opposite side of them. Just so you're not twisting my words.

The coverup worked a long time. And the feds will hopefully find out the mechanics of that. We're not going to here.

Reader said:

[/B]

Makes you wonder if there was some outside influence on him in that decision...

Click to expand...

RFG's record, apart from this case, was good. He prosecuted cases that, looking at them from the outside, were far more flimsy that Sandusky. He lost a high profile rape trial in 2002-03 against a Penn State football player, one that was controversial and that involved Paterno. Paterno let the suspect suit up for a bowl game and that produced controversy. RFG lost the case, but he tried to win it. He didn't drop it on a staffer; he personally prosecuted.

He was a tough prosecutor for the most part. There were a few cases like, almost impossible from the start, but he pressed forward. Even Schrieffer said that he was a top notch prosecutor.

pinktoes said:

JJ: you totally misunderstood me. I think perhaps Gricar was realistically assessing just how far he'd get in a courtroom--and outside of a courtroom--going up against all the power brokers and politicians in that town, from 1998 thru 2005 with that 1998 incident. I think he was hoping to build a stronger case, with more victims. Perhaps 10 was his trigger. IDK

I do know that community has some people much more influential than Gricar, who, collectively, didn't need his help in covering up Sandusky's crimes. I see him on the opposite side of them. Just so you're not twisting my words.

The coverup worked a long time. And the feds will hopefully find out the mechanics of that. We're not going to here.

Click to expand...

I'm not twisting your words, because you just repeated them. You are saying that, when faced with force, he backed off. That is being part of the culture of cover up (and, if so, he certainly was not alone). I hope that is not the case.

As for trying to find more victims, as noted, he had the ability to call a grand jury. He'd have to go to court and get a judge's approval, but it would have been likely to be granted. He didn't. We can rule that out.

Reader said:

I say that because without a subpeona there is no oversight in the process of the family handing over materials requested. They could say 'such n such' doesn't exist or they can't find it and no one is the wiser. I have nothing against the family but I think their front-end cooperating could be a way to control these materials and conceal anything they think would bring harm to Paterno's legacy and reputation. IMO

Click to expand...

If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

Rlaub44 said:

.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

Click to expand...

Personnel reports? He was Sandusky's supervisor. Personal e-mails/letters? Maybe with some reference to watch Sandusky. Travel schedules?

Rlaub44 said:

If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

Click to expand...

BBM

IDK, but I would think the investigators would want to take a look at the financial records for any of his co mingled business deals with PSU and/or TSM people such as Pinnacle Development. Seems I remember there were also some convenience stores.

J. J. in Phila said:

Personnel reports? He was Sandusky's supervisor. Personal e-mails/letters? Maybe with some reference to watch Sandusky. Travel schedules?

Click to expand...

Pictures of JS with the kids he brought on those trips, at dinners, meeting the football players...those were some of his draws for the boys.

Rlaub44 said:

If there ever came a time that investigators suspected that the family was not being forthcoming, the subpoena would quickly follow. If they haven't received a subpoena, it would seem that they willingly offered to provide whatever was needed up front, to the satisfaction of those leading the investigation.

I'm going to give the Paterno family the benefit of the doubt for the time being; I understand if others might be skeptical, but I certainly prefer the idea of their cooperation instead of stonewalling.

On another note, I'm having a hard time imagining what relevant documents Joe Paterno could have maintained. Any employment materials regarding Sandusky would have been maintained at the administrative level, there has been no suggestion of any written reports that would have been shared with Paterno, and if there was an organized cover-up, as has been hinted, one certainly wouldn't maintain written documentation about it.

Can anyone else think of what relevant materials investigators might hope to find from Joe Paterno's personal records?

Click to expand...

bbm

Here is one thing. They are searching for letters/emails to try to prove that money was donated to Penn State by Jerry’s friends, so Jerry the perv could retain his special campus privileges (his locker room key and office) after he was told to not bring boys onto the campus (because he was a perv/showered with boys).

Aside from being a legendary "Rah Rah, Go Team Go" football coach, Joe Paterno was in charge of a $70 million dollar per year business making a profit of over $50 MILLION each year. Now, instead of Joe Paterno running a football business with income relying heavily on alumni and supporter's remembrance of the "Glory Years" and their defensive guru, Ole Jer, let's pretend that Joe Paterno ran a Widget factory with the same astronomical revenue and profit numbers. For running this Widget factory, let's also say Joe Paterno, personally, made the same $1 MILLION per year in salary as he was making with the football team.

In our scenario let's pretend that one of Joe's up and coming management trainees came to his house one morning and told him that he had observed this Widget factory's legendary top producer in an "extremely sexual situation" at the company's headquarters with a TEN YEAR OLD CHILD! In fairness, we've also got to remember that a janitor in the company building had told of seeing the same "Widget King", loved by all of America, performing oral sex on ANOTHER child, two years earlier!

What should Joe Paterno, the Widget factory manager, do since he had't personally seen any of this? If this wasn't handled properly, and word got out, sales would almost surely plummet! Forget for a moment the morally bankrupt absence of concern for the child, what would be the most prudent course of action for Joe, the Widget factory manager, to take in order to maintain his fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's Board of Directors?

Would reporting the matter to Sargent Shultz, head of the parking lot guards, be enough? Would reporting a matter that could jeopardize MILLLIONS of dollars to someone with ZERO training or experience in investigative procedure be the wise and prudent way to find the truth? Would Joe, the Widget factory manager, reporting this potentially financially devastating situation directly to upper levels of government Law Enforcement to investigate for the truth, really be the most prudent course of action?

As I said, forget the child. If there's one thing that's obvious in this situation, NO ONE at the Widget factory OR Penn State University took any action for the child up to and including even finding out his name.

Now back to Joe at the Widget factory and his dilemma. Since no plan of action could realistically be formed until the TRUTH regarding this "Widget King's" acts was determined, why didn't they consider spending relative chump change to hire a top level private investigative firm to find the truth? If the accusations were untrue, the matter would have stayed in house. If the accusations were true, and with a prompt and decisive response to Law Enforcement, instead of financial devastation Joe and the Widget factory could have become heroes to every parent in America. Think of all the widgets they would have sold then!

There's only one reason that makes any sense. Joe Paterno and the rest of these people already knew the truth about this monster and had been covering it up for many years. Now the monster is devouring them all, one by one.

Concerned Papa said:

Aside from being a legendary "Rah Rah, Go Team Go" football coach, Joe Paterno was in charge of a $70 million dollar per year business making a profit of over $50 MILLION each year. Now, instead of Joe Paterno running a football business with income relying heavily on alumni and supporter's remembrance of the "Glory Years" and their defensive guru, Ole Jer, let's pretend that Joe Paterno ran a Widget factory with the same astronomical revenue and profit numbers. For running this Widget factory, let's also say Joe Paterno, personally, made the same $1 MILLION per year in salary as he was making with the football team.

Click to expand...

First, let's say that it was, senior executive Joe, who had to answer to the VP in charge of manufacturing and the CEO. That is a closer analogy.

In our scenario let's pretend that one of Joe's up and coming management trainees came to his house one morning and told him that he had observed this Widget factory's legendary top producer in an "extremely sexual situation" at the company's headquarters with a TEN YEAR OLD CHILD! In fairness, we've also got to remember that a janitor in the company building had told of seeing the same "Widget King", loved by all of America, performing oral sex on ANOTHER child, two years earlier!

Click to expand...

First, take out the janitor part, because that was never reported. Second, note that it is a retired top producer, who is now effectively under the jurisdiction of the VP in charge of manufacturing.

What should Joe Paterno, the Widget factory manager, do since he had't personally seen any of this? If this wasn't handled properly, and word got out, sales would almost surely plummet! Forget for a moment the morally bankrupt absence of concern for the child, what would be the most prudent course of action for Joe, the Widget factory manager, to do in order to maintain his fiduciary responsibility to the company and it's Board of Directors?

Click to expand...

Report it, and then do a followup to see if the matter was taken care of.

Would reporting the matter to Sargent Shultz, head of the parking lot guards, be enough?

Click to expand...

It probably would have been taken to internal security, but he the analogy ends. Internal security doesn't have actual LE authority. So let's say their head of local security is also the mayor of the town where the factory is located, and, as such, head of the local police force (which is the case in PA boroughs). That is the proper analogy.

I'd fully expect that security head/mayor to call in his police chief and say, "I think you should be investigating this." I'd also expect Joe to ask the VP of production what has been done.

J. J. in Phila said:

~Snipped~

First, let's say that it was, senior executive Joe, who had to answer to the VP in charge of manufacturing and the CEO. That is a closer analogy.


I'd also expect Joe to ask the VP of production what has been done.

Click to expand...

BBM

Sure, whatever you say :floorlaugh:

Paterno's doorbell rang Nov. 21, 2004 -- a Sunday -- only one sunrise separating the coach from the conclusion of a 4-7 football season. Four high-ranking Penn State officials, including university president Graham Spanier and athletic director Tim Curley, walked into Paterno's home and told him, for the second time in less than two weeks, that they wished him to stop coaching, either at that minute or very soon.

Curley, Spanier and the others arrived with a message they had heard from many. The 2004 season convinced legions that Paterno was instinctively driving his program to its grave. For the first time, folks spotted the coach's sincere, growling confidence and figured it the root of his decay.

The four men who arranged the meeting with Paterno spoke first.

Recalled Paterno during a recent interview: "The direction they wanted to take was, 'Maybe it's time to go, Joe. You ought to think about getting out of it.' I had not intended to discuss that with them, because I felt I would know when to get out of it."

So Paterno, speaking to the four school officials only briefly that day, stressed several things. He refused to quit

Paterno said. "They didn't quite understand where I was coming from or what it took to get a football program going. ... I said, 'Relax. Get off my backside.' "

"I was able to say [to the administrators], 'Stay over there.' " Paterno pushed his hands away from his body -- an illustrative shooing motion.

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/05359/627761-143.stm

Click to expand...

Concerned Papa said:

BBM

Sure, whatever you say :floorlaugh:

Click to expand...

That didn't mean that, in 2002, he could order other people around. Paterno's strength was that he said, **You can get rid of me, but I won't raise another dollar for the University.**

Paterno contributed a lot of his personal funds to the PSU, and raised a lot more. (And, bluntly, he did a lot of good in that respect.) While Sandusky didn't, people at Second Mile did as well. And Sandusky, in 2002, was the power in Second Mile.

J. J. in Phila said:

That didn't mean that, in 2002, he could order other people around. Paterno's strength was that he said, **You can get rid of me, but I won't raise another dollar for the University.**

Paterno contributed a lot of his personal funds to the PSU, and raised a lot more. (And, bluntly, he did a lot of good in that respect.) While Sandusky didn't, people at Second Mile did as well. And Sandusky, in 2002, was the power in Second Mile.

Click to expand...

So you're saying his power to order the University President and Athletic Director was non existent in 2002, but was in place for the meeting where they tried to fire him in 2004?

Ok. Must have been the football team's record that brought about that metoric increase in Joe's authority. IDK, guess a combined won-loss record of 16 wins and 20 loses between 2002 and 2004 must have been just the trick.

2002, 9-4
2003, 3-9
2004, 4-7

Funny how little it takes to be able to say things like "Get off my backside" and "Stay over there" to your bosses, huh?

Concerned Papa said:

So you're saying his power to order the University President and Athletic Director was non existent in 2002, but was in place for the meeting where they tried to fire him in 2004?

Click to expand...

I'm saying the full "power" he had was to threaten to quit and not raise funds. He used it a couple of times, according to reports.

Funny how little it takes to be able to say things like "Get off my backside" and "Stay over there" to your bosses, huh?

Click to expand...

When they ask you to retire, and they are not willing to fire you, you can say just about anything to them.

J. J. in Phila said:

I'm saying the full "power" he had was to threaten to quit and not raise funds. He used it a couple of times, according to reports.


When they ask you to retire, and they are not willing to fire you, you can say just about anything to them.

Click to expand...

Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paterno’s door:

“YOU tell him”

“NO, YOU tell him”

“I’m not gonna tell him, he might fire ME”

“Tell ya what, let’s try ASKING him real nice, OK?”

“Good idea! Think he’ll fall for it?”

“I don’t know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!"

:floorlaugh:

Concerned Papa said:

Sure, and the conversation between Spanier and Curley probably went something like this as they approached Paterno’s door:

“YOU tell him”

“NO, YOU tell him”

“I’m not gonna tell him, he might fire ME”

“Tell ya what, let’s try ASKING him real nice, OK?”

“Good idea! Think he’ll fall for it?”

“I don’t know, just be ready to get the heck out of there!

:floorlaugh:

Click to expand...

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: